Tranche 2 & the Preservation of Power

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

At the end of 22/23 season we had £630K in the bank. We were due to receive nearly £150K from people that owed us money and we owed just over £1M to other people. In simple terms that’s where the money’s gone.

At the start of Season 23/24 after Tranche 1 all residual debts (£350k ) were paid off from Tranche 1 - according to club financial statements  - so we were debt free 

We also had £280K of Cash Reserves from Tranche 1 

This constant blaming of the Jlo Board for out current financial crisis isn't convincing anyone 

£280k of cash Reserves - gone + £170k of losses 

where did all the money go ? 
 

as for TJF involvement and there constant attempts to deflect away from the fact we have serious financial issues 

TJF signed off a budget of £280k losses with £75k of cash reserves - and funny enough we struggle to pay our debts by the end of the Season 

now there telling us there getting monthly accounts and are bringing in stricter financial controls 

the insanity of allowing a £280k loss was pointed out to them in the bluntest of terms 

@woodstockjag & @Norgethistledefended this nonsense 

the Club Board should be reviewed however serious questions have to be asked of TJF they were brought in to provide stability in our finances and we are no better of despite £500k of investment 

Edited November 15 by Jordanhill Jag

[javeajag]

1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

At the end of 22/23 season we had £630K in the bank. We were due to receive nearly £150K from people that owed us money and we owed just over £1M to other people. In simple terms that’s where the money’s gone.

Is the club currently being run at a loss ? Yes, this season that loss will be around £280k

is tranche 2 needed to cover that loss ? Yes, part of it will be to cover losses and build up a cash flow reserve 

is breaking even on an operating basis over a three year cycle achievable ? That has not been achieved for a long time, maybe never.

is it easier to control costs than revenue ? Yes

we should all be concerned that our break even target is too far in the future and may never be met.

[Woodstock Jag]

15 minutes ago, javeajag said:

is breaking even on an operating basis over a three year cycle achievable ? That has not been achieved for a long time, maybe never.

I think (from memory) it was achieved (or thereabouts) when we were in the Premiership.

 

[javeajag]

11 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

I think (from memory) it was achieved (or thereabouts) when we were in the Premiership.

 

Never in the championship……

[Woodstock Jag]

Just now, javeajag said:

Never in the championship……

Correct, though others have managed it. St Johnstone for example.

Ayr United are probably the closest of the current pack to achieving it.

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, javeajag said:

Never in the championship……

We achieved it the Season before we were promoted - circa £40K profit   

[Lenziejag]

2 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

At the start of Season 23/24 after Tranche 1 all residual debts (£350k ) were paid off from Tranche 1 - according to club financial statements  - so we were debt free 

We also had £280K of Cash Reserves from Tranche 1 

This constant blaming of the Jlo Board for out current financial crisis isn't convincing anyone 

£280k of cash Reserves - gone + £170k of losses 

where did all the money go ? 
 

as for TJF involvement and there constant attempts to deflect away from the fact we have serious financial issues 

TJF signed off a budget of £280k losses with £75k of cash reserves - and funny enough we struggle to pay our debts by the end of the Season 

now there telling us there getting monthly accounts and are bringing in stricter financial controls 

the insanity of allowing a £280k loss was pointed out to them in the bluntest of terms 

@woodstockjag & @Norgethistledefended this nonsense 

the Club Board should be reviewed however serious questions have to be asked of TJF they were brought in to provide stability in our finances and we are no better of despite £500k of investment 

Are you trying to bamboozle people? What you are saying here is that after tranche 1 we had £280K in cash. We are going to report a loss of £170K. So, that leaves £110K. It’s not £280K plus £170K.

 

[Jordanhill Jag]

1 hour ago, Woodstock Jag said:

Correct, though others have managed it. St Johnstone for example.

Ayr United are probably the closest of the current pack to achieving it.

You have stated that “ everyone knew we needed circa £800k “ in relationship to the position that the Club was in at the end of Season 22/23 

now this is very very important - if “everyone” knew - it wasn't presented as such at the AGM that we needed additional substantial funds above Tranche 1 

the presentations at the AGM painted a very positive picture of how well things were being run ( which as you are aware I questioned at the AGM as I was far from convinced on the figures) 

we were even told this Season would be be breakeven ( again I was not convinced) 

to go from that to saying everyone one we needed £800k is a major issue - if we has funding challenges that we were aware of - the Shareholders have to be advised

now I know my small % of shares is of no consequence and as long as the Board and the New PTFC West Wing of TJF agree in there meetings its ok - but as a shareholder Im entitled to know of any financial challenges that the Club faces  

[Jordanhill Jag]

6 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

Are you trying to bamboozle people? What you are saying here is that after tranche 1 we had £280K in cash. We are going to report a loss of £170K. So, that leaves £110K. It’s not £280K plus £170K.

 

Ok - thanks for clarifying 

what you are confirming is that my statement that with £280k forecast losses and £75k of Cash Reserves we would hit the buffers ( which we have) 

So how can the Board & TJF sign off a budget where the forecast losses are circa four times the cash reserves ? 

[Woodstock Jag]

45 minutes ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

You have stated that “ everyone knew we needed circa £800k “ in relationship to the position that the Club was in at the end of Season 22/23 

now this is very very important - if “everyone” knew - it wasn't presented as such at the AGM that we needed additional substantial funds above Tranche 1 

the presentations at the AGM painted a very positive picture of how well things were being run ( which as you are aware I questioned at the AGM as I was far from convinced on the figures) 

we were even told this Season would be be breakeven ( again I was not convinced) 

to go from that to saying everyone one we needed £800k is a major issue - if we has funding challenges that we were aware of - the Shareholders have to be advised

now I know my small % of shares is of no consequence and as long as the Board and the New PTFC West Wing of TJF agree in there meetings its ok - but as a shareholder Im entitled to know of any financial challenges that the Club faces  

No one reading TJF’s statement on 5th October 2023 could have been remotely under the impression that tranche 1 was sufficient.

Direct quotes:

“This investment was necessary because of the erosion of reserves suffered by the Club in recent seasons (most notably in 2021-22 and 2022-23). We have commented on the scale of that and the responsibility for it previously.

We are grateful to those who intervened to alleviate the immediate pressures towards the end of last season, and to the fans for stepping-up their fundraising support through TJF and other initiatives including excellent season ticket sales.

First and foremost, what this investment does is begin to restore the Football Club’s margin of safety, so that it can operate without any immediate risk of financial distress over the current season.

Secondly, it provides the Club Board with the breathing space to restructure and improve off-field operations, so that they are more efficient and raise more revenue. This investment, on its own, does not guarantee the Club’s longer-term sustainability.

The financial position inherited meant that outside capital of one type or another was essential because the hole to be filled was much bigger than we could reasonably expect fans to fill in the available timeline.

However, fan fundraising remains an essential component of the income that underpins the operating budget, and these vital contributions will be required to continue into the future despite the investment. That is the price of fan ownership and the controls and protections that brings us as fans.”

And later:

“To be completely candid, longer-term development at the Club, to get us back to being an established top-flight Club with appropriate facilities, will require additional investment in the years ahead.

The deal that has been signed allows some flexibility for further investment further down the road along similar lines. This forward planning is prudent and we welcome it.”

It was *always* anticipated that more than £500k was needed if the ambition was to maintain a competitive team pushing for promotion to the Premiership.

You can ignore what we said all you like, Jim. Entirely your prerogative.

[Lenziejag]

1 hour ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Ok - thanks for clarifying 

what you are confirming is that my statement that with £280k forecast losses and £75k of Cash Reserves we would hit the buffers ( which we have) 

So how can the Board & TJF sign off a budget where the forecast losses are circa four times the cash reserves ? 

I am not clarifying anything. I wasn’t addressing the 24/25 position in any way.

[Jordanhill Jag]

42 minutes ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No one reading TJF’s statement on 5th October 2023 could have been remotely under the impression that tranche 1 was sufficient.

Direct quotes:

“This investment was necessary because of the erosion of reserves suffered by the Club in recent seasons (most notably in 2021-22 and 2022-23). We have commented on the scale of that and the responsibility for it previously.

We are grateful to those who intervened to alleviate the immediate pressures towards the end of last season, and to the fans for stepping-up their fundraising support through TJF and other initiatives including excellent season ticket sales.

First and foremost, what this investment does is begin to restore the Football Club’s margin of safety, so that it can operate without any immediate risk of financial distress over the current season.

Secondly, it provides the Club Board with the breathing space to restructure and improve off-field operations, so that they are more efficient and raise more revenue. This investment, on its own, does not guarantee the Club’s longer-term sustainability.

The financial position inherited meant that outside capital of one type or another was essential because the hole to be filled was much bigger than we could reasonably expect fans to fill in the available timeline.

However, fan fundraising remains an essential component of the income that underpins the operating budget, and these vital contributions will be required to continue into the future despite the investment. That is the price of fan ownership and the controls and protections that brings us as fans.”

And later:

“To be completely candid, longer-term development at the Club, to get us back to being an established top-flight Club with appropriate facilities, will require additional investment in the years ahead.

The deal that has been signed allows some flexibility for further investment further down the road along similar lines. This forward planning is prudent and we welcome it.”

It was *always* anticipated that more than £500k was needed if the ambition was to maintain a competitive team pushing for promotion to the Premiership.

You can ignore what we said all you like, Jim. Entirely your prerogative.

Explain how TJF signed off a budget with losses 4 times the size of our cash reserves -and expected to trade through the Season without putting the Club in serious financial problems ? 

That alone shows that the Board and the Club West Wing of Political Advisors in TJF - are not living in the real world of running a business thats sustainable 

it was “ always anticipated “ we would need Tranche 2 - how come that was not stated at the AGM - how come at the AGM we were told how well we were doing 

this is a Board ( and TJF get to check the finances) who forecast a breakeven for this Season 

instead its £280K of losses and no Cash Reserves left 

why don't you deal with the basics - trading losses  4 times the size of your reserves - thats ridiculous and should lead to major changes on the Board / not explained away with waffle -and it was all Jlos fault 

Edited November 15 by Jordanhill Jag

[Woodstock Jag]

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

Explain how TJF signed off a budget with losses 4 times the size of our cash reserves -and expected to trade through the Season without putting the Club in serious financial problems ? 

The Club Board prepared the budget in the expectation that tranche 2 would be pursued, having indicated to shareholders in January at the AGM that they intended to bring it forwards.

We asked them, when they presented the budget, what the plan would be if tranche 2 did not materialise, and they explained that the shortfall should be able to be managed, in the 2024-25 season at least, through careful timing of meeting obligations to creditors and, if necessary, through soft loans from directors. On that basis, we were satisfied that, whilst it would create a difficult situation, it would not lead to a repeat of the situation in 2022-23 where, but for a fortuitous Scottish Cup draw, the Club would actually and literally run out of cash.

Edit to add: this budget also meant that the Club could commit to keeping the Academy open, once the single-season underwriting from a benefactor had been exhausted there). We saw this budget as being one that invested for the future in that key respect.

We were acutely aware that such a scenario (tranche 2 being rejected) would mean significant cuts to the playing budget in 2025-26 if promotion was not secured, as well as pain in other parts of the business. But we also appreciated that, if promotion could be secured, it would make the Club's objective of breaking even in future seasons orders of magnitude more attainable, given prize money, crowds and commercial opportunities.

The budget also had, within it, room for the Club Board to exceed expectations on revenue, drastically decreasing the forecast loss from the £280k level. It was only a £280k loss on the basis of finishing in 4th place, leaving plenty room for footballing up-side if, once the £300k player fund donations were taken into account, the higher playing budget translated into better results on the park.

Similarly, the non season ticket gate projections were deliberately pessimistic and de-risked. So far they are performing ahead of that target.

Additionally, if the Academy secured more sources of revenue than had been pessimistically assumed, the Club would be relieved of its 2024-25 underwrite commitment, which was in the budget. That looks like it won't be needed.

Equally, there are other areas of the Club budget where, as we have publicly stated, it is currently underperforming on revenues. Season ticket sales were flat when they budgeted for an up-tick. Hospitality isn't reaching its targets. The revenue from the Centenary Fund took a hit when, for regulatory compliance reasons, the club moved towards the new Club Lotto platform. So we're not getting the full bang for the buck, as things stand, from those better crowds and the Academy over-performance.

The budget we signed-off on included the opportunity for the Club Board to overdeliver and to do better than the £280k scenario. It was on that basis, after really quite extensive interrogation of the revenue forecasts and costings, that we agreed to let them proceed with it.

We thought it better to have a budget that openly and honestly admitted what the revenue risks were than one that made over-optimistic assumptions out of a desire to present a plausible path to break-even (the like of which you saw in January's AGM forecasts).

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

That alone shows that the Board and the Club West Wing of Political Advisors in TJF - are not living in the real world of running a business thats sustainable 

Partick Thistle is not, currently, a sustainable business entity. No one disputes this.

Where we disagree is on what the appropriate strategy is to bring about a sustainable business model.

You think we should cut the Women's team, sack the back-office staff, sack the board and bring in your friends and volunteers to run the Club.

The Club Board, and others, think that sustainability will come from professionalising the off-field operation and through driving revenue growth across the wider business, even if that means spending a bit more in the short term.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

it was “ always anticipated “ we would need Tranche 2 - how come that was not stated at the AGM - how come at the AGM we were told how well we were doing 

Firstly, the Club Board made clear at the January 2024 AGM that it intended to proceed with the tranche 2 investment. In fact, they said they wanted to do it in Q1 of 2024 (i.e. before the budget had even been set for season 2024-25). Here is the relevant slide from Richard Beastall's AGM presentation

It even earmarks the need for money to make stadium repairs and improvements (which were subsequently flagged as the main use of tranche 2 funds in the Club's August update).

Some of the proposed areas have seen spending carried on already, which has meant they used up tranche 1 funds instead (e.g. ticket and till system improvements actually happened during the first half of 2024).

The important thing here is that the Club Board's approach to revenue generation was premised on progressing tranche 2, and actually on timescales far faster than has transpired. The original "option" in the Investment Agreement anticipated a November 2023 completion of tranche 2. The AGM anticipated a March 2024 completion of tranche 2. All within the FY 2023-24.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

this is a Board ( and TJF get to check the finances) who forecast a breakeven for this Season 

And when the Club Board forecast break-even in the January AGM presentation, TJF then immediately queried the revenue assumptions (especially the projected fan revenues), told them those were not achievable, and instructed them to prepare their budget on the basis of more pessimistic revenue projections.

Which is the reason why the Club is budgeting for a loss in 2024-25 instead of breaking-even.

3 hours ago, Jordanhill Jag said:

instead its £280K of losses and no Cash Reserves left

why don't you deal with the basics - trading losses  4 times the size of your reserves - thats ridiculous and should lead to major changes on the Board / not explained away with waffle -and it was all Jlos fault 

Except, if tranche 2 had gone ahead on the basis of the original timescales envisaged, it wouldn't be "4 times the size of your reserves". The losses would have been about half of the reserves (£75k + £500k in the bank, £280k loss). A completely different situation.

The Club Board's desire to progress tranche 2 as part of the Club's financial strategy was not concealed from anyone. The need for about £1 million of investment was clearly identified when TJF and others sought to work on their own bail-out deal for the Club in early 2023. Those in the room will all testify that the bare minimum figure they were working to was £800k and that, if the Academy was to be part of the save, it probably needed to be a larger number.

TJF's own comms in June 2023, issuing a call to arms to fans, stipulated explicitly that it had to be more than £500k to deal with the cashflow issues beyond 2023-24.

TJF's own comms in October 2023, welcoming the first tranche of investment, said that further investment was needed to rebuild the Club into a Premiership Club with appropriate facilities, and made clear that tranche 1 only dealt with cashflow issues for season 2023-24.

The Club's AGM presentation said they wanted to get tranche 2 done by the end of March 2024.

None of this was a surprise, Jim.

Edited November 15 by Woodstock Jag
Academy comment

[Jordanhill Jag]

7 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

No one reading TJF’s statement on 5th October 2023 could have been remotely under the impression that tranche 1 was sufficient.

Direct quotes:

“This investment was necessary because of the erosion of reserves suffered by the Club in recent seasons (most notably in 2021-22 and 2022-23). We have commented on the scale of that and the responsibility for it previously.

We are grateful to those who intervened to alleviate the immediate pressures towards the end of last season, and to the fans for stepping-up their fundraising support through TJF and other initiatives including excellent season ticket sales.

First and foremost, what this investment does is begin to restore the Football Club’s margin of safety, so that it can operate without any immediate risk of financial distress over the current season.

Secondly, it provides the Club Board with the breathing space to restructure and improve off-field operations, so that they are more efficient and raise more revenue. This investment, on its own, does not guarantee the Club’s longer-term sustainability.

The financial position inherited meant that outside capital of one type or another was essential because the hole to be filled was much bigger than we could reasonably expect fans to fill in the available timeline.

However, fan fundraising remains an essential component of the income that underpins the operating budget, and these vital contributions will be required to continue into the future despite the investment. That is the price of fan ownership and the controls and protections that brings us as fans.”

And later:

“To be completely candid, longer-term development at the Club, to get us back to being an established top-flight Club with appropriate facilities, will require additional investment in the years ahead.

The deal that has been signed allows some flexibility for further investment further down the road along similar lines. This forward planning is prudent and we welcome it.”

It was *always* anticipated that more than £500k was needed if the ambition was to maintain a competitive team pushing for promotion to the Premiership.

You can ignore what we said all you like, Jim. Entirely your prerogative.

Ok so the operative line is “ the forward planning is prudent and we welcome it” 

no it wasn't - there was no attempt on any level to operate within budgets - it was just never considered as an option because the Free Money of Tranche 2 was simply the easy option 

[Jordanhill Jag]

4 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

The Club Board prepared the budget in the expectation that tranche 2 would be pursued, having indicated to shareholders in January at the AGM that they intended to bring it forwards.

We asked them, when they presented the budget, what the plan would be if tranche 2 did not materialise, and they explained that the shortfall should be able to be managed, in the 2024-25 season at least, through careful timing of meeting obligations to creditors and, if necessary, through soft loans from directors. On that basis, we were satisfied that, whilst it would create a difficult situation, it would not lead to a repeat of the situation in 2022-23 where, but for a fortuitous Scottish Cup draw, the Club would actually and literally run out of cash.

Edit to add: this budget also meant that the Club could commit to keeping the Academy open, once the single-season underwriting from a benefactor had been exhausted there). We saw this budget as being one that invested for the future in that key respect.

We were acutely aware that such a scenario (tranche 2 being rejected) would mean significant cuts to the playing budget in 2025-26 if promotion was not secured, as well as pain in other parts of the business. But we also appreciated that, if promotion could be secured, it would make the Club's objective of breaking even in future seasons orders of magnitude more attainable, given prize money, crowds and commercial opportunities.

The budget also had, within it, room for the Club Board to exceed expectations on revenue, drastically decreasing the forecast loss from the £280k level. It was only a £280k loss on the basis of finishing in 4th place, leaving plenty room for footballing up-side if, once the £300k player fund donations were taken into account, the higher playing budget translated into better results on the park.

Similarly, the non season ticket gate projections were deliberately pessimistic and de-risked. So far they are performing ahead of that target.

Additionally, if the Academy secured more sources of revenue than had been pessimistically assumed, the Club would be relieved of its 2024-25 underwrite commitment, which was in the budget. That looks like it won't be needed.

Equally, there are other areas of the Club budget where, as we have publicly stated, it is currently underperforming on revenues. Season ticket sales were flat when they budgeted for an up-tick. Hospitality isn't reaching its targets. The revenue from the Centenary Fund took a hit when, for regulatory compliance reasons, the club moved towards the new Club Lotto platform. So we're not getting the full bang for the buck, as things stand, from those better crowds and the Academy over-performance.

The budget we signed-off on included the opportunity for the Club Board to overdeliver and to do better than the £280k scenario. It was on that basis, after really quite extensive interrogation of the revenue forecasts and costings, that we agreed to let them proceed with it.

We thought it better to have a budget that openly and honestly admitted what the revenue risks were than one that made over-optimistic assumptions out of a desire to present a plausible path to break-even (the like of which you saw in January's AGM forecasts).

Partick Thistle is not, currently, a sustainable business entity. No one disputes this.

Where we disagree is on what the appropriate strategy is to bring about a sustainable business model.

You think we should cut the Women's team, sack the back-office staff, sack the board and bring in your friends and volunteers to run the Club.

The Club Board, and others, think that sustainability will come from professionalising the off-field operation and through driving revenue growth across the wider business, even if that means spending a bit more in the short term.

Firstly, the Club Board made clear at the January 2024 AGM that it intended to proceed with the tranche 2 investment. In fact, they said they wanted to do it in Q1 of 2024 (i.e. before the budget had even been set for season 2024-25). Here is the relevant slide from Richard Beastall's AGM presentation

It even earmarks the need for money to make stadium repairs and improvements (which were subsequently flagged as the main use of tranche 2 funds in the Club's August update).

Some of the proposed areas have seen spending carried on already, which has meant they used up tranche 1 funds instead (e.g. ticket and till system improvements actually happened during the first half of 2024).

The important thing here is that the Club Board's approach to revenue generation was premised on progressing tranche 2, and actually on timescales far faster than has transpired. The original "option" in the Investment Agreement anticipated a November 2023 completion of tranche 2. The AGM anticipated a March 2024 completion of tranche 2. All within the FY 2023-24.

And when the Club Board forecast break-even in the January AGM presentation, TJF then immediately queried the revenue assumptions (especially the projected fan revenues), told them those were not achievable, and instructed them to prepare their budget on the basis of more pessimistic revenue projections.

Which is the reason why the Club is budgeting for a loss in 2024-25 instead of breaking-even.

Except, if tranche 2 had gone ahead on the basis of the original timescales envisaged, it wouldn't be "4 times the size of your reserves". The losses would have been about half of the reserves (£75k + £500k in the bank, £280k loss). A completely different situation.

The Club Board's desire to progress tranche 2 as part of the Club's financial strategy was not concealed from anyone. The need for about £1 million of investment was clearly identified when TJF and others sought to work on their own bail-out deal for the Club in early 2023. Those in the room will all testify that the bare minimum figure they were working to was £800k and that, if the Academy was to be part of the save, it probably needed to be a larger number.

TJF's own comms in June 2023, issuing a call to arms to fans, stipulated explicitly that it had to be more than £500k to deal with the cashflow issues beyond 2023-24.

TJF's own comms in October 2023, welcoming the first tranche of investment, said that further investment was needed to rebuild the Club into a Premiership Club with appropriate facilities, and made clear that tranche 1 only dealt with cashflow issues for season 2023-24.

The Club's AGM presentation said they wanted to get tranche 2 done by the end of March 2024.

None of this was a surprise, Jim.

See lots of talk on how the Board intended to pursue Tranche 2 -but what sort of organisation spends money before they actually have it ?

at no point at the AGM were any budgets qualified -that they were contingent on Tranche 2 being received ? 

what TJF questioned or otherwise is irrelevant - the Board gave budgets - they were not qualified by saying these only work if we get Tranche 2

they did not state - these budgets are based on wiping out the £280K Cash Reserves + running at a £170K loss in 23/24 then not being able to pay our bills at the end of Season 24/25 -because we are basing everything on getting Tranche 2 - if they did serious questions would have been asked

pursuing is not doing - its simply a statement of intent and Tranche 2 was always subject to shareholder agreement

So what your saying is the Board bet the Club Financial stability on getting Tranche 2 agreed

as for the future - costs are easier to control than some non tangible opinion on assumed commercial growth - and we are looking at circa £300K of this growth - so again the board -supported by TJF are making a massive bet on growth based on someones opinion -and the hope couple of the USA Investors will cough up more cash

thats it - thats the cunning plan - all to keep the status quo

You keep pointing the finger accusing me of wanting to cut the  non Football Squad overhead to the minimum - as though this is some form of heresy - its conventional management practice to reduce non core overhead to the minimum -if you have tight budgets - yet this is used as some sort of personal slight against me ?
 

your own current and former board members have argued for the exact same thing - yet Im now a heretic ? Your now onto a defacto 5 Year plan -since the previous board was removed towards running at breakeven 

so here is a hint - don't spend money you don't have 

As for our Board - Clearly TJF have lost faith in them - you have had to change there budget forecasts - put in measures to prevent them spending all the cash reserves - check monthly management accounts - have an input in key staff appointment

which begs the question - who is actually calling the shots at PTFC  

I will make this as simple as I can 

1.You are not going to increase Commercial Revenue to offset your ongoing Budget shortfall ( thats simply pie in the sky ) 

2.You cant cut the Player Budget -or it will affect income and ability to compete 

3.You will have to cut non essential spend and overhead by circa £150 to £200k ( this is an achievable number ) 

 

 

[Fawlty Towers]

The open meeting on Friday the 29th of November has been moved to an earlier start of 7pm:

https://ptfc.co.uk/ptfc-news/open-meeting-regarding-proposed-tranche-2-investment-update/

[partickthedog]

14 minutes ago, Fawlty Towers said:

The open meeting on Friday the 29th of November has been moved to an earlier start of 7pm:

https://ptfc.co.uk/ptfc-news/open-meeting-regarding-proposed-tranche-2-investment-update/

Will the meeting now be held in 2 tranches with a long break in between?

[ChiThistle]

One for the TJF board members reading this thread.  For those unable to attend the meeting:

1) Is there a recommended way to submit questions in advance?

2) Am I correct that the vote will be held at the meeting?  If so, is there a way to do a proxy vote or submit my vote in advance?

Thank you!

[partickthedog]

25 minutes ago, ChiThistle said:

One for the TJF board members reading this thread.  For those unable to attend the meeting:

1) Is there a recommended way to submit questions in advance?

2) Am I correct that the vote will be held at the meeting?  If so, is there a way to do a proxy vote or submit my vote in advance?

Thank you!

Others more informed than me will answer your questions with more authority. 

However, on Question 2 I am sure that there will be no vote taken at the meeting on 29th November. It will be purely for information sharing, discussion and questions. The final decision on Tranche 2 will be taken at an EGM or AGM. Presumably the Trust will consult appropriately with its members prior to such EGM or AGM to establish how its vote should be cast.

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, partickthedog said:

Will the meeting now be held in 2 tranches with a long break in between?

It was always intended that it would drag on until after 9pm and anyone who says we only intended it to run to 8pm didn’t read our very clear statements 12 and 6 months ago.

[Woodstock Jag]

1 hour ago, ChiThistle said:

One for the TJF board members reading this thread.  For those unable to attend the meeting:

1) Is there a recommended way to submit questions in advance?

2) Am I correct that the vote will be held at the meeting?  If so, is there a way to do a proxy vote or submit my vote in advance?

Thank you!

(1) Just email the Trustees at [email protected]

(2) No, the beneficiary vote will be an e-ballot, just like the elections earlier this year. The ballot won’t be launched until after the town hall meeting.

[Woodstock Jag]

And for the sake of completeness, the beneficiary vote is the “first” stage of any vote.

It determines the position of the PTFC Trust in any subsequent shareholder vote on a proposal to issue new shares.

If the beneficiaries vote in favour, there will then be the “second” stage decision: a special resolution put forward at a General Meeting of the Club. This would either be at the Club AGM, likely in January, or at a separate EGM if the timing doesn’t otherwise work.

If the beneficiaries vote against, there is zero prospect of a special resolution passing (because it would at best only minority shareholder support and it needs 75%). So there probably wouldn’t then be (the need for) a shareholder vote at an AGM.

A special resolution, if put forward, is essentially certain to pass, as the combined shareholdings of Donald McClymont and the PTFC Trust is over the 75% threshold. It is, nevertheless, open to minority shareholders to raise concerns at the General Meeting, and to vote against the motion to put their opposition on the record.

[Jordanhill Jag]

15 hours ago, Woodstock Jag said:

And for the sake of completeness, the beneficiary vote is the “first” stage of any vote.

It determines the position of the PTFC Trust in any subsequent shareholder vote on a proposal to issue new shares.

If the beneficiaries vote in favour, there will then be the “second” stage decision: a special resolution put forward at a General Meeting of the Club. This would either be at the Club AGM, likely in January, or at a separate EGM if the timing doesn’t otherwise work.

If the beneficiaries vote against, there is zero prospect of a special resolution passing (because it would at best only minority shareholder support and it needs 75%). So there probably wouldn’t then be (the need for) a shareholder vote at an AGM.

A special resolution, if put forward, is essentially certain to pass, as the combined shareholdings of Donald McClymont and the PTFC Trust is over the 75% threshold. It is, nevertheless, open to minority shareholders to raise concerns at the General Meeting, and to vote against the motion to put their opposition on the record.

And for the sake of Clarity - and as Ive said on numerous occasions - Tranche 2 is a done deal - as far as the Board were concerned it was a Done Deal from the outset - they even based budgets around it 

TJF job is to get it past by there members - as such there will be no awkward questions - there will be the illusion that TJF are taking steps to get tighter financial controls on Cash Reserves etc 

But they could have done that at any point in the last 12 Months - but instead they let the Board Burn through them to the extent we cannot pay our debtors without loans 

and now funny enough the justification is that we need Tranche 2 because we have No Cash Reserves 

any Club would either have Directors with the standards that they stepped down when we run up debts we cant pay - any major shareholder would make moves for changes on the Board 

any business would make changes to stop average losses of £250K a Year 

but not the PTFC Board and not TJF - why? 
 

because they are happy with the Power and they want to keep the Status Quo 

If the JLo Board had started selling off large chunks of Shares because they kept running up large losses - the mobs would be on the Canal Bank chanting Sack the Board / TJF would want due diligence as to why we run up such large losses and burn off cash reserves 

but we live in a new “ fan owned” era - the TJF Political West Wing of PTFC now call the shots - there will be no opposition to the New PTFC Vision 

The Plan is hopefully some of the New Investors give us some cash - failing that a Tranche 3 and it will be sold just the way Tranche 2 was ( after all the German Model was always envisioned by “all of those in the room “ ) 

Not one single concern expressed by TJF since they took over on how the Clubs being run - not one 

Why ? 
 

its simple - nothing happens without there ok - its there Club 

 

Edited November 18 by Jordanhill Jag

[Mr Scruff]

As originally a sceptic of the notion of Fan Ownership, I think it's clear that the difference between now and JLow's period is night and day.  There's a reason that no-one (?) is calling for Director's heads or protesting on the canal bank.  And it's not just the comfortable relationship between those trusted with managing the ownership and the club.

My reading of this is that the current board are trying to manage a soft-landing from the awful position the previous management had left the club in fiscally, as well as recovering from the obvious contempt they held the fans in.  Trading cash for a small amount of ownership seems like a very effective, and strategically undamaging way to enable this. The devil may be in the detail, but there's a lot to commend this approach.

Sometimes in a business buying time to fix long term risks and develop future opportunities is the most important thing.  This feels like that.  It sounds like there's more prudence, with an eye to creating security and in this context Tranche 2 is strategy rather than failure it seems to me.

The notion of 'not spending money you don't have' sounds great in principle, but most business have to work on the basis of projections rather than starting the financial year with all the money for that year in the bank or 100% committed.  Therefore it's your assumptions that require the skill and experience .  Too optimistic and you can run out of money really quickly.  Too pessimistic and you can run out of productivity and performance.  It's hard enough in business, God knows how you'd do that in a football club where many of the levers between success, failure, and business performance are heavily linked but impossible to predict.

My biggest gripe about the current administration off-pitch is that they leave money on the table and should work hard on the fundamentals of customer service, but that's another story and post 

[Jordanhill Jag]

2 hours ago, Mr Scruff said:

As originally a sceptic of the notion of Fan Ownership, I think it's clear that the difference between now and JLow's period is night and day.  There's a reason that no-one (?) is calling for Director's heads or protesting on the canal bank.  And it's not just the comfortable relationship between those trusted with managing the ownership and the club.

My reading of this is that the current board are trying to manage a soft-landing from the awful position the previous management had left the club in fiscally, as well as recovering from the obvious contempt they held the fans in.  Trading cash for a small amount of ownership seems like a very effective, and strategically undamaging way to enable this. The devil may be in the detail, but there's a lot to commend this approach.

Sometimes in a business buying time to fix long term risks and develop future opportunities is the most important thing.  This feels like that.  It sounds like there's more prudence, with an eye to creating security and in this context Tranche 2 is strategy rather than failure it seems to me.

The notion of 'not spending money you don't have' sounds great in principle, but most business have to work on the basis of projections rather than starting the financial year with all the money for that year in the bank or 100% committed.  Therefore it's your assumptions that require the skill and experience .  Too optimistic and you can run out of money really quickly.  Too pessimistic and you can run out of productivity and performance.  It's hard enough in business, God knows how you'd do that in a football club where many of the levers between success, failure, and business performance are heavily linked but impossible to predict.

My biggest gripe about the current administration off-pitch is that they leave money on the table and should work hard on the fundamentals of customer service, but that's another story and post 

The “ soft landing” was achieved after Tranche 1 - the Jlo debts had been paid off - we had £280K cash in Reserves 

we forecast breakeven this Season - its now changed to a £280K loss 

we have spent all the cash reserves 

we will struggle pay our debts at the end of the Season 

this is 100% on the current board and TJF 

this blaming jlo has to stop and responsibility allocated to those making the decisions 

there is no plan to stop the £250K losses each year - none 

so we will be asking our US Backers for more cash in the near future - no doubt continuing to blame Jlo